The Funky Navigation Thread

[JiggeryPokery]

I've spotted some more graphics errors, one glitch, and one literally still not implemented for HD, in the current Reason build. This time regarding the Navigators, a function I've rediscovered this past few weeks

[All images are 1:1 scale at 140% zoom in Reason, default 100% scaling in Windows. ]

On the Rack side, there are wierd black gaps

funky_rack_nav.png (101.5 KiB) Viewed 988 times

Now, the resolution scaling is also odd, but it's only obviously wrong if one stares at it too long, which admittedly isn't really the use-case, so arguably a non-issue. But the gaps are just very wrong. Note, for example, the gap between the Big Meter and the Master Section.

And on the Mixer side nothing there has HD scaling. And this is somewhat more egregious as the Mixer navigator has actual UI buttons at the bottom for Show/Hide of the various subsections, and they still seem to be using the original old bitmaps for the entire thing.

Non-HD_Mix_Nav.png (23.1 KiB) Viewed 988 times

While I'm here, in this week's fantastic episode of "Why the Bloody Bleedin' Hell Does it Do That?", why the bloody bleedin' hell when creating a new automation track for a Mixer, does it create the initial track for that channel in a random place in the Sequencer so you have play "hunt the Mixer track" every bleedin' bloody time rather than, you know, just building it next to the associated Device track and so the user can go right to it?

Even when you've selected the Device Track in the Sequencer first in desperate a "please create it here!" hail Mary?

Arrgh, god jesus christ no!.png (102.62 KiB) Viewed 988 times

I know this isn't a new issue, but it's one of those stupid bugbears one has put up with for years, and I keep thinking: why?

There's no obvious logic, either. It's not even alphabetical. "Drums" shouldn't ever be coming between "Mal" and "Strat"! But then, it's not actually random either. Using the Drum Device track above as the example, it will consistently create a Mixer track for it between Mal and Strat here. Maybe it's a random seed! . And remember, this image is a compacted view for the purposes of this example. Usually, you're probably zoomed out just far enough it takes half a minute of scrolling hither and thither to track down the bastard thing you just made.

[Jackjackdaw]

I just submitted a ticket because of a graphics glitch that stops me from moving fx out of the insert box to the top of an instrument in the rack. Got an incredibly swift reply that told me to drag the fx to the bottom of the instrument instead.

That’s great, thanks, but what I said still doesn’t work like it should.

[Pepin]

I think the mixer track always gets created below the sequencer track of whatever device is above it in the rack (or more precisely, the first device above it that has a sequencer track).

This is the same way it generally works when you choose "Create Track for Device" from the right-click menu.

[Propellerhands]

Don't get me started on automation lanes in Reason which can become a mess. For instance, since Reason 11 I changed my work style in Reason and started using combinators if I want to separate different instruments/plugins.

So for example for Track 1, create combinator (which creates its on mix channel), then add 14x2 Mixer and then add a Subtractor below. Then click on Filter Freq to create automation lane for it. In sequencer however I see a lane for Combinator and another lane for Subtractor with a separate note lane and automation lane for Filter Frequency. I am sure there is a good reason for this mess, but for me it is just unnecessary feature since I would prefer if everything fell under Combinator's lane, not separate lanes for each device inside Combinator.

It becomes confusing while mixing and editing midi in sequencer, which device belong to whom, because even if I name the combinator, the additional devices inside it are not named, thus automation lanes are just random names, Subtractor 4, Unison 2 etc. etc.

Really irritates me, but again, maybe some people find this feature useful.

P.S. Thanks JiggeryPokery, now I can not unsee those gaps!

[jam-s]

Don't get me started on automation lanes in Reason which can become a mess. For instance, since Reason 11 I changed my work style in Reason and started using combinators if I want to separate different instruments/plugins.

So for example for Track 1, create combinator (which creates its on mix channel), then add 14x2 Mixer and then add a Subtractor below. Then click on Filter Freq to create automation lane for it. In sequencer however I see a lane for Combinator and another lane for Subtractor with a separate note lane and automation lane for Filter Frequency. I am sure there is a good reason for this mess, but for me it is just unnecessary feature since I would prefer if everything fell under Combinator's lane, not separate lanes for each device inside Combinator.

If you want to have it in the combinator lane you have to actually use the combinator like it is meant to be used: Simply map that Subtractor Filter Freq to a (new) knob on the combinator.

[Propellerhands]

If you want to have it in the combinator lane you have to actually use the combinator like it is meant to be used: Simply map that Subtractor Filter Freq to a (new) knob on the combinator.

Yeah I know, but that is so.. time consuming. I did it on one track only, mapping volume controls on several instruments and making my own sliders and stuff. But apart from being only cosmetic feature (to me personally) I saw no reason to continue doing it as it did not make my workflow faster. Perhaps I had imagined Combinators purpose a bit differently than Reason Studios intended, so that's on me.

[JiggeryPokery]

I think the mixer track always gets created below the sequencer track of whatever device is above it in the rack (or more precisely, the first device above it that has a sequencer track).

Ah, yeah. Wow. You're right. That kind of makes it even worse knowing the logic behind this, largely because it demonstrates a thorough lack of the application of it

Because here's the thing of why it's a terrible user experience: firstly, as a user, I'm not at this point in the Rack, I'm in the Mixer, looking to create a Sequencer track to automate a parameter in a specific selected device to record/adjust that track's Mix parameters. It's pretty much always necessary to edit automation tracks so it's useful to know where the bloody thing is when you've gone to add one. The Rack order should be irrelevant, because otherwise it's making a false assumption based on default creation positions of devices, rather than the state of the Rack and Sequencer as it may be now. The position of completely unrelated device A shouldn't enter into the equation of creating a track for Device B.

The system you've noted might, perhaps, have worked in a single-rack scenario where new devices are always and only ever being adding at the bottom, and no device ever moved. But where you're adding devices to multiple rack columns, the ordering of devices in the sequencer isn't so linear, and doubly so if you subsequently move devices from one rack to column to another, for example when you consider scenarios where you reorder devices/tracks in the Rack or the Sequencer for your own usability or navigation purposes. Heck, even reordering devices in a single rack column would screw the current Mix Channel track position "logic" because such reordering in one screen isn't reflected in the other two (I'm not suggesting it should, mind, although an optional ability to do so might have been handy).

Why would the default position have determined a user wants a mix channel to be positioned below a device unrelated to the one they're trying to apply an automation to, rather than, you know, positioning it with the device you're applying the automation to! It's this kind of nonsense logic with creating new devices that puts things in daft positions in the first place.

In another sense, why not just have the Mix Tracks created in the Sequencer with a Device Track start with, and that are always attached to the device channel when you reorder the device in the Sequencer? The downside is the risk of creating too much clutter in the Sequencer, but it gets pretty untidy in there anyway, so a solution was that Mix Tracks could have been set up to be folded by default to partially mitigate that. At least when then adding automation, the Mix Track will always be where you expect it. There's the rabbit hole of folder tracks, perhaps every Device Track should be a folder in and of itself, with a Sequencer and Mixer Track inside.

[MuttReason]

Ah, yeah. Wow. You're right. That kind of makes it even worse knowing the logic behind this, largely because it demonstrates a thorough lack of the application of it

Because here's the thing of why it's a terrible user experience: firstly, as a user, I'm not at this point in the Rack, I'm in the Mixer, looking to create a Sequencer track to automate a parameter in a specific selected device to record/adjust that track's Mix parameters. It's pretty much always necessary to edit automation tracks so it's useful to know where the bloody thing is when you've gone to add one. The Rack order should be irrelevant, because otherwise it's making a false assumption based on default creation positions of devices, rather than the state of the Rack and Sequencer as it may be now. The position of completely unrelated device A shouldn't enter into the equation of creating a track for Device B.

The system you've noted might, perhaps, have worked in a single-rack scenario where new devices are always and only ever being adding at the bottom, and no device ever moved. But where you're adding devices to multiple rack columns, the ordering of devices in the sequencer isn't so linear, and doubly so if you subsequently move devices from one rack to column to another, for example when you consider scenarios where you reorder devices/tracks in the Rack or the Sequencer for your own usability or navigation purposes. Heck, even reordering devices in a single rack column would screw the current Mix Channel track position "logic" because such reordering in one screen isn't reflected in the other two (I'm not suggesting it should, mind, although an optional ability to do so might have been handy).

Why would the default position have determined a user wants a mix channel to be positioned below a device unrelated to the one they're trying to apply an automation to, rather than, you know, positioning it with the device you're applying the automation to! It's this kind of nonsense logic with creating new devices that puts things in daft positions in the first place.

In another sense, why not just have the Mix Tracks created in the Sequencer with a Device Track start with, and that are always attached to the device channel when you reorder the device in the Sequencer? The downside is the risk of creating too much clutter in the Sequencer, but it gets pretty untidy in there anyway, so a solution was that Mix Tracks could have been set up to be folded by default to partially mitigate that. At least when then adding automation, the Mix Track will always be where you expect it. There's the rabbit hole of folder tracks, perhaps every Device Track should be a folder in and of itself, with a Sequencer and Mixer Track inside.

I've always found this to be really odd. Never quite understood why the order of newly created instruments in the rack didn't match up with the order in the sequencer. Just always seemed to be random somehow. My workaround is to use colours. I've got into the habit of naming each instrument/effect I add to the rack and using a consistent rack/mixer/seq colour scheme for different types of instruments (eg shades of red for all rhythm/beats, shades of green for pads/washes etc etc. Makes it a lot easier to flick between mixer/seq/rack and get to a specific instrument/channel quickly.

[Pepin]

Ah, yeah. Wow. You're right. That kind of makes it even worse knowing the logic behind this, largely because it demonstrates a thorough lack of the application of it
...

Agreed that it's not ideal. The current system was probably less confusing before the SSL mixer and multi-column rack were introduced. But it gets tricky regardless if you frequently reorder stuff in the rack.